UD825/2013

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD825/2013

CLAIM OF:                                                                                                  

Teodorico Magno

-claimant

Against

Ponaire Irish Handcraft Coffee Limited T/A Ponaire Limited

  -respondent

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:       Mr P. Hurley

Members:        Mr T. Gill

                        Ms H. Kelleher

heard this claim at Limerick on 17th November 2014

Representation:

_______________

Claimant:         Mr Fergus Murrihy, Redundant Workers Centre, St Mary's Adult Education Centre, Island Road, Kings Island, Limerick

Respondent:    In Person

Summary of Evidence

The claimant was employed from April 2011 as an assistant in the respondent’s coffee shop. He had a spousal dependent work permit which allowed him to work in this jurisdiction. In order to secure this permit for the claimant the respondent had to prove that there was no suitable EU national available to fill the role. The respondent went through the process again for the claimant’s permit in 2012; this permit was to expire on the 8^th of June 2013.

The respondent sought advice from the department administering work permits as a previously part-time Irish employee had notified the respondent that she would be available to work full-time from the 1^st of April 2013. This employee’s availability would fulfil the full-time role the claimant was occupying. The governing department did not provide any constructive advice to the respondent. As a result the respondent believed that to remain compliant with her legal requirements she had to terminate the claimant’s employment in order to give the Irish employee the full-time role.   By letter of the 30^th of April 2013 the respondent notified the claimant that his employment was being terminated as of the 17^th of May 2013. The claimant’s employment was terminated before the expiry of his work permit in order to give the Irish employee the full-time role. The respondent believed if the Irish employee was not given the role immediately it would be in violation of the respondent’s legal requirements under the Work Permits Legislation.

The claimant was informed by the respondent ‘that she was still sending letters’ in regard to his work permit. When the claimant gave the respondent the form for his work permit renewal he was informed that his employment was being terminated.

Determination

The Tribunal accept jurisdiction to hear this claim as the claimant was legally working when his employment was terminated.

Dismissal is deemed to be fair as the work permit regulations supersede the Unfair Dismissals regulations. In order to comply with the regulations the respondent had no option but to terminate the claimant’s employment.

The claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 fails.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)